Administrators

Administrators are Wikipedians who have "''sysop rights''". Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Generally speaking, standards have become harder in practice. However, there are several administrators created every week. Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention - Wikipedia:List of administrators "This should be no big deal," as Jimmy Wales has said. Administrators are not imbued with any special ''authority'', and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some Wikipedians consider the terms "Sysop" and "Administrator" to be wiktionary:misnomer, as they just indicate Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. However it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users. In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be nominated as full administrators by members of the community and more likely to be chosen when they are finally nominated. The community ''does'' look to administrators to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the WP:VFD and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete ''obvious'' vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. == So, what's the deal? == The Wiki software has a few important features that are restricted. Of those restricted features, administrators have access to the following. === Protected pages === * Edit the Main Page, and other Wikipedia:protected page. For information and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Editing the main page. You can suggest changes at Talk:Main Page. The main page used to receive a ''lot'' of vandalism; protecting it is an unfortunate compromise to keep our welcome mat free of random profanity. * Protect and unprotect pages. Pages are only protected in certain rare circumstances - for information and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. ===Deletion and undeletion=== * Delete pages and their history. For information and guidelines, see both Wikipedia:deletion policy and (most definitely) Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. To suggest a page to delete (after reading the policy and guidelines pages!), see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Sometimes deletion is a technical matter, in which a redirection page has to be removed to make way for renaming an article, or a page whose history has been broken up has to be deleted and the pieces recombined. Other times it's a matter of cleaning up simple junk edits on pages with no actual content, or removing material that has been pasted in from another site and infringes Wikipedia:Copyright. * View and restore deleted pages and their history. See Wikipedia:Undeletion for guidelines. To challenge an already made decision to delete a page, see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. * Permanently delete images. This is a non-reversible change: once deleted, always deleted. For information and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. To suggest an image to delete (after reading the policy), see Wikipedia:Images for deletion. To challenge a decision to delete an image, make sure that you still have a copy of the image (else there is no way to restore it), then see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Note that there is no particular reason that image deletion should not be reversible; this is simply the way the software works at present. ===Reverting=== *Wikipedia:Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with an Wikipedia:Edit summary of ''(Reverted edits by X to last version by Y)'' and marks it as a minor change. ===Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings=== Admins have the authority to enforce rulings by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. === Hiding vandalism from recent changes === * Sysops can hide vandalism from Special:Recentchanges. To do this, add &bot=1 to the end of the URL used to access a user's contributions. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Michael&bot=1. When the rollback links on the contributions list are clicked, the revert and the original edit that you are reverting will both be hidden from the default Recentchanges display (by using the marker originally added to keep massive bot edits from flooding recentchanges, hence the "bot"). This means that they will be hidden from recent changes unless you click the "bots" link to set hidebots=0. The edits are not hidden from contributions lists, page histories or watchlists. The edits remain in the database and are not removed, but they no longer flood Recentchanges. The aim of this feature is to reduce the annoyance factor of a flood vandal with relatively little effort. This should not be used for reverting a change you just don't like, but is meant only for simple vandalism, particularly massive flood vandalism. === Block and unblock === * Block IP addresses, IP ranges, and user accounts, for a specific time, or indefinitely. * Unblock IP addresses, IP ranges, and user accounts. * See wikipedia:blocking policy for more information on when blocks are appropriate and when they are not. See Special:Ipblocklist for currently blocked addresses and usernames === Database queries === * When special:asksql is enabled, sysops can run read-only queries on the database. When it is not enabled, or if you are not confident about using SQL, or you are not a sysop, you can request a query be run for you at m:Requests for queries. If users want to run queries that take longer than 30 seconds, they should download the [http://download.wikipedia.org/ backup dump] and a MySQL database and perform queries locally. Wikipedia:Database queries recommends not running any queries that would take more than ten seconds. === Design and wording of the interface === * As of 6 December, 2003, sysops can change the ''text'' of the interface by editing the pages in the Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace. This includes the text at the top of pages such as the "Special:Whatlinkshere" and the page that a blocked user will see when they try to edit a page (MediaWiki:Blockedtext). * As of 3 June, 2004, sysops can edit the ''style'' of the interface by changing the Cascading Style Sheets in the monobook stylesheet at MediaWiki:Monobook.css. == Becoming an administrator == If you would like sysop access add your name to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship according to the guidelines mentioned there, and a voting will take place by fellow editors in order to determine if you should become an administrator. It's recommended that you write for Wikipedia for a while before requesting administrator status, since other users will have to recognize you before they can agree on your promotion. Also keep in mind that each wikipedia:international Wikipedia has its own policies for administrators, which may differ somewhat. ''Be careful, please!'' If you are granted access, we ask that you exercise care in using these functions, especially the ability to delete pages and their history, to delete images (which is permanent!), and the ability to block IP addresses. You can learn about your newfound powers at the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. You should also take a look at the pages linked from the '''Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list''' before using any of your sysop abilities. ==Other access types== In addition to administrators, there are other types of identified users, listed here in roughly ascending order of power. (Administrators, clearly, go after Signed-in users.) === Signed-in users=== Users with ordinary access, including visitors who haven't "signed in," can still do most things, including the most important: editing articles and helping with Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance. But only signed-up users can wikipedia:image use policy or wikipedia:how to rename (move) a page; see Special:Userlogin to sign up for yourself. === Bureaucrats === Users with "Wikipedia:Bureaucrats" status can turn other users into sysops (but not remove sysop status). Bureaucrats are created by other bureaucrats on projects where these exist, or by stewards on those who don't yet have one. Sysoppings are recorded in Special:Log/rights Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log. Sysoppings by stewards are recorded at Meta:Special:Log/rights but the few stewards who actively sysop users on the English Wikipedia do so using their local bureaucrat status, making this distinction rather academic. === Stewards === Users with "m:stewards" status can change the access of any user on any Wikimedia project. This includes granting and revoking sysop access, and marking users as bots. Their actions are recorded at m:Meta:Bureaucrat log. Requests for their assistance can be made at m:requests for permissions. Normally, they will not perform actions that can be carried out by a local bureaucrat. === Developers === The highest degree of technical access (actually a group of levels, the difference between all but the lowest of which isn't really visible to users) is "developer", for those who can make direct changes to the Wikipedia software and database. These people, by and large, do not carry out administrative functions, aside from sock puppet checks and reattributing edits. They can be contacted via Wikitech-L. See m:Developer for a list of developers and further information. ==Administrator abuse== Administrators can be removed if they abuse their powers. Presently, administrators may be removed either at the decree of User:Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with the stewards. == Dealing with grievances == If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship but none of them have achieved Wikipedia:consensus. Wikipedia functionaries Wikipedia administrators als:Wikipedia:Administratoren bm:Wikipedia:Administrateurs bs:Wikipedia:Administratori fa:ویکی‌پدیا:مدیران ff:Wikipedia:Administrators fo:Wikipedia:Umbo�sstj�ri fur:Vichipedie:Aministrad�rs ga:Vicip�id:Riarth�ir� gu:વિકિપીડિયા:પ્રબંધક hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रबन्धक ka:ვიკიპედია:ადმინისტრატორები la:Wikipedia:Magistratus li:Wikipedia:Systeembeheerders lv:Wikipedia:Administrācija mi:Wikipedia:Administrators ms:Wikipedia:Penyelia mt:Wikipedia:Amministraturi na:Wikipedia:Administrators nds:Wikipedia:Administrators scn:Wikipedia:Amministraturi simple:Wikipedia:Administrators sq:Wikipedia:Administruesit su:Wikip�dia:Kunc�n th:วิกิพีเดีย:ผู้ดูแลระบบ vi:Wikipedia:Người quản l� zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:H�ng-ch�ng j�n-o�n

Administrators

Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 1
Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 2
Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 3
Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 4 * Wikipedia talk:Administrators/protection of this page * Wikipedia talk:List of administrators ---- == Jheijmans, former admin? == User:Jheijmans said on his User page that he used to be an admin last year until he quit for a while. Does anybody remember that? If so, we can add him to Wikipedia:Administrators#Former Administrators. --User:Menchi 06:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC) ==Mirror Sites== ''Question on Mirror Sites moved to Wikipedia:Village pump.'' ==De-adminship of inactive admins== ''Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship'' I'd like to nominate the following inactive sysops for de-adminship. This has been discussed on wikipedia talk:administrators (further talk can probably go there). I'd discuss it with them first... but they're inactive ;-) This is not to deny their many excellent contributions while here, simply to recognise that they are here no longer. * User:-- April * user:Clifford Adams * user:Karen Johnson * user:LC * user:Lee Daniel Crocker * user:Mark Christensen * user:Peter Winnberg * user:RoseParks * user:Scipius * user:Sjc * user:WojPob * user:Zoe All the above have been inactive for two or more months - in some cases much longer. Thanks. User:MyRedDice 20:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) :What's this for? Just to clean out the list? Will Lee Daniel Crocker have to re-apply for sysop when he comes back? --User:Ed Poor 20:50, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::Apparently not "just to clean out". On wikipedia talk:administrators there has been some discussion related to perceived security issues concerning inactive sysop accounts. I don't think it's urgent, but should be discussed. User:Kosebamse 20:55, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) :Why don't we just deactivate them and allow them to re-sysoped w/o having to go through the normal nomination process when they come back? We need to set a guideline of what time period of inactivity is enough for de-opping though. --User:Jiang 22:26, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::I disagree with this, and I'll say why on Wikipedia talk:administrators, where this discussion began, in the interests of consolidation and forest fire containment. I suggest anyone else who wants to discuss this take their comments there also. -- User:Tim Starling 00:51, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC) :Martin, absolutely not. Inactivity is no basis for deactivation. User:Kingturtle 09:18, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) :: Strongly concur with that "absolutely not". Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they ''demonstrated judgement'', and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, if it involves turning off the admin bit on the account, there ought to be some simple way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. User:Jnc 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Banned for vandalism?== I have been banned for "repeated vandalism". I have no idea what I did to deserve this, and seriously hope it was a mistake on the part of the administrator. I defy RickK or whoever else is responsible for sentencing me, to show where I vandalized anything. User:Vroman 20:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) :What do you mean? The Wikipedia:Block log shows no record of a user called Vroman being banned. If you are blocked, how are you posting here? User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 21:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::All I can think of is that Vroman got an IP from an IP pool that was banned previously. --User:Snoyes 21:33, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::The situation seems to have corrected itself. Thanks for taking the time to investigate. User:Vroman 23:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) == Specific question on how to become an administrator == Hi! This is taken from the Request for adminship page: "After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. " My question is: what exactly does "general agreement" mean? Can you become an administrator by only having one person that has reviewed your work and that was positive about it? (--130.236.224.35) :General agreement means that everyone who responds (more or less) agrees that you should become an admin. Specific questions/criticisms must be addressed before the request/nomination can proceed. If you do make a request there, you can be assured that you will get more than one response. --User:Raul654 18:52, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::What are these questions/criticisms? :::People will post them after a request/nomination is made. They vary on a case by case basis. The most common criticism is that someone will want to become an admin after being here only a short time. They're generally told to keep contributing for a few months, and reapply later. --User:Raul654 21:39, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::::Ok, but theoretically it is then possible to become an administrator by just having one positive comment, or am I wrong? :::::Theoretically, many things are possible. ;-) --User:Snoyes 00:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) Please add Thanks Arno_Lagrange">User:ArnoLagrange 14:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) : Done. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 16:54, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Wikipedia:Recently created admins== Wikipedia:Recently created admins is nice but it only lists recently created admins. Do we have a similar page lists old admins? User:Optim 03:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) : Wikipedia:Administrators#Former_Administrators? --User:Menchi (User talk:Menchi)� 04:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Previously, this was done on the mailing lists, so you'd need to check the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ wikien-l archives] for details of less recently created admins. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 19:22, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) ::: I see, thanks Menchi and Angela for your answers! Peace, User:Optim 11:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) == 168... == I am aware of the actions of 168... that led to the need for arbitration. However, I am curious to know what the process was to temporarily suspend his admin powers until the Committee makes is ruling. Was it the arbitration committee that made the call for the temporary suspension? Was it a developer? Do tell. User:Kingturtle 07:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) :It was carried out by User:Tim Starling following a vote on Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of admin privileges#User:168... which showed 87% in favour of temporarily desysopping 168. Tim then sought the arbitration committee's view on whether he should stay desyopped. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 07:44, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) ::Where does it say that it was carried out? On what authority does that straw poll carry so much weight? I am trying to find the ''paper trail''. User:Kingturtle 07:57, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) He then posted on the mailing list and received Jimbo's blessing: [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010544.html]. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang ::Arg. That dreaded mailing list. :) Thanks for the info :) User:Kingturtle 17:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- ''Moved here from Village Pump, User:Fuzheado 02:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)'' == Remove all sysops == I propose that the term "sysop" be removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. We already have administrator (short admin), and it is kind of confusing to have both. Not to mention that sysop doesn't really fit the bill, unless you consider Wikipedia a system! I am bringing this up now because of the newly emerged Special:Makesysop seems to be introducing the term sysop even more. I am guessing this would be mostly a search and replace kind of deal, disruptive yes, but is it any more difficult than that? Are the benefits worth it? User:Dori | User talk:Dori 20:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) :When I saw the heading I thought "ACK!", but I think Dori has a nice point here about lingo. We needn't make it too confusing. "Sysop" does sound cooler than "admin", though.... :-) Anyway, I almost always say admin, and will try to do so in the future. Good idea! User:Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::I strongly disagree with the idea of this person who calls herself "Dori" (what's in that name, anyway?). Sysop is a great word and should be used more often. User:141 21:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::...calls ''himself'' Dori. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 07:12, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) :''Sysop'' is an account switch and ''admin'' is the person who controls that account. Sadly many people use ''sysop'' to refer to people. That irks me. --User:Maveric149 22:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Huh? So an ''admin'' is someone with ''sysop'' status? What kind of sense does that make? I agree that we should standardise on one term to minimise confusion. An ''admin'' should be somebody who has an ''admin'' account, which is defined by a switch called ''is_admin'' or somesuch. - User:IMSoP 22:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::For whatever reason the switch is (or at least was in phase II) is_sysop. Thus the distinction. --mav ::::So, let's be practical: given that it's confusing to have both terms in use*, would it be easier to standardise on ''sysop'' to avoid database changes, or would it be no big deal to just replace is_sysop with is_admin? ''[*:that is, assuming the consensus is that it ''is'' confusing]'' - User:IMSoP 23:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Honestly, I just use ''sysop'' and ''admin'' interchangably. User:Raul654 23:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) :But do you think it ''sensible'' to do so, especially given that new users won't necessarily realise that they are synonyms? - User:IMSoP 23:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) : I agree with Dori (without any criticism of developers or the DB architects). It would be nice to have consistent naming, more importantly for the MediaWiki software to be useful to folks outside of Wikipedia-land. : I also prefer "admin", though it's no big deal. User:Tannin 03:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) : Another related peeve is how we have "Talk" pages, yet the link to this is called "Discuss this page." When I give instructions to newbies to "Use the talk page!" I get dozens of emails asking how to get there. They are quite surprised that "Discuss this page" is the appropriate link, and I don't blame them. User:Fuzheado 00:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: Refer them to the "discussion page" instead of the "talk page". The link title "Discuss this page" is much more obvious for newbies looking for a way to give feedback.User:Eloquence 03:43, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) I thought this had already been done. Kind of reminds me of how people think "bans" and "blocks" are the same thing. - User:Hephaestos|User talk:Hephaestos 03:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I like the word sysop. :) But as that's not a very good reason, I support any change/standardisation of the term admin instead. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 07:12, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) :I agree. Being that one of Wikipedia's goals is to attract casual newcomers and (hopefully) turn them into contributors, intuitive interfaces and naming schemes should be a primary goal. User:Raul654 07:18, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) Erm, User:Cyp has invented a category below to put his vote in, which is very funny - but I'm not quite sure what point he's trying to make. [Especially given that we already have a "don't care" category] Would you care to enlighten us on what your actual opinion is, Cyp? - User:IMSoP 15:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) :It's probably a very important point I was trying to make, I just haven't figured out what that point is, yet. I thought sysop meant the person, while admin was the state/setting/whatever. I think sysop sounds a bit better than admin, since admin is too common and ordinary-sounding. I think sysop might be slightly easier to pronounce than admin, too. So if it wasn't possible to add new sections, I would probably have voted for "sysop", "don't care" or both. User:Cyp User:Cyp/Will this eventually appear on Special:Wantedpages? User talk:Cyp 22:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Straw poll== ''Note: I've arranged this back into the original options, and moved people's comments to after their names. There's no point having a straw poll if people just put a comment and then vote for it as though it was an option. If you think I've moved your vote to the wrong option - well, you should have voted properly in the first place, shouldn't you? - User:IMSoP 12:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)'' A) I think that ''sysop'' should be deprecated in favor of ''admin'' # User:Raul654 07:18, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) - I think admin is more intuitive than sysop. This is very important where new user are concerned. # User:IMSoP 16:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) ''(although it's marginal, as long as there is a standard term to avoid confusion)'' # User:Fuzheado 11:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) (though we can still use sysop casually, but all our docs, official terms, naming should use admin or administrator) # User:Dori 14:41, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) we could use the uniformity, and admin makes more sense in this case # User:Marshman 17:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Yeh, admin makes more sense # User:Jnc 03:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC) To me, "admin" sounds less forbidding, so I prefer it. But if y'all think "sysop" is less intimidating, then I'd go with that instead. # User:Mendel— User:mendel User_talk:Mendel 22:00, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) An admin is a caretaker; a sysop is a babysitter. "Admin" implies more respect for the desires of the administered. # User:L33tminion | User talk:L33tminion 16:09, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) "Admin" is less confusing. #Sysop is too Unix-y. Andre">User:Andrevan (User_talk:Andrevan)A 06:39, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) # User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 15:43, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC) "Sysop" suggests "just like the sysops on all the other sites on the Web." Those sites didn't get (IMO well earned) Webbies for Best Practices. B) I think that ''admin'' should be deprecated in favor of ''sysop'' # User:Cimon avaro 12:31, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) Just an opinion. Dislike the term administrator on aesthetic grounds, and have some nostalgic affection to the term "sysop"; it's sort of old fogey lingo. # User:Cyp ''(based on comment above: So if it wasn't possible to add new sections, I would probably have voted for "sysop", "don't care" or both)'' C) Leave it like it is / I don't care # User:Fennec 03:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) # User:Angela (Do what you like but don't fuss about people using the wrong one) # User:Maximus Rex 21:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) # User:Kingturtle 20:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Let's go ride bikes. ) # User:RickK 04:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Aren't there more important things to worry about?) # User:Cyp (I think that ''admin'' should be deprecated in favour of ''sysop'' on weekdays and that ''sysop'' should be deprecated in favour of ''admin'' on weekends.) D) I think both "sysop" and "admin" should be deprecated in favor of "janitor" # User:Cyan 02:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) # User:MyRedDice 18:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) # I actually prefer custodian, but janitor is good. User:Moink 22:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) == blocking utility usage == Out of personal curiosity, I wanted to see how we're doing as a group regarding utilizing the block and unblock powers. I thought I'd share the data; it is for fun and for self-assessment. Not including tests, jokes and self-bans, the following is a reasonably accurate list of admins and the number of blocks they've made in 2004. It is my understanding that IP blocks expire after 24 hours. As long as that is true, everything is cool - because most of these involve IPs. 86 Maximus Rex (with 10 unblocks) 40 Hephaestos (with 2 unblocks) 35 Morwen (with zero unblocks) 28 Pakaran (with 1 unblock) 28 Dysprosia (with zero unblocks) 25 Ahoerstemeier (with 5 unblocks) 25 Snoyes (with 2 unblocks) 22 Evercat (with 2 unblocks) 18 Salsa Shark (with zero unblocks) 16 Silsor (with 5 unblocks) 16 Angela (with 4 unblocks) 14 Secretlondon (with 3 unblocks) 14 Dori (with zero unblocks) 12 Fuzheado (with 2 unblocks) 12 Tim Starling (with 1 unblock) 11 Dante Alighieri (with zero unblocks) 8 RickK (with zero unblocks) 7 Jiang (with 2 unblocks) 7 Cyan (with 1 unblock) 6 Tannin (with zero unblocks) 5 Eloquence (with 3 unblocks) 5 Raul654 (with zero unblocks) 4 Delirium (with 12 unblocks) 4 Ed Poor (with 2 unblocks) 4 Finlay McWalter (with zero unblocks) 3 Stevertigo (with 1 unblock) 3 Jwrosenzweig (with zero unblocks) 2 Maveric149 (with 3 unblocks) 2 Infrogmation (with zero unblocks) 2 Arwel Parry (with 2 unblocks) 2 Jimbo Wales (with 2 unblocks) 2 PMelvilleAustin (with 1 unblock) 2 JeLuF (with zero unblocks) 2 The Anome (with zero unblocks) 2 Muriel Gottrop (with 1 unblock) 1 Danny (with 1 unblock) 1 Kaihsu (with 1 unblock) 1 Andre Engels (with 1 unblock) 1 Camembert (with zero unblocks) 1 AstroNomer (with zero unblocks) 1 Adam Bishop (with zero unblocks) 1 Meelar (with zero unblocks) 1 Bmills (with zero unblocks) 1 G-Man (with zero unblocks) 1 Jtdirl (with zero unblocks) 1 Evil saltine (with zero unblocks) 1 WhisperToMe (with zero unblocks) 1 Quercusrobur (with zero unblocks) 0 John Kenney (with 2 unblocks) 0 Menchi (with 2 unblocks) 0 Jamesday (with 1 unblock) :2004 Totals through ''23:10, 17 Feb 2004'': 487 blocks. 75 unblocks. :Admins participating in block/unblock activities in 2004: 51 :Admins NOT YET participating in block/unblock activities in 2004: 107 Your pal, User:Kingturtle 03:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Thanks, pal. How about a list of Bureaucrats now? --User:Ed Poor 16:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Oh, never mind. They're in Wikipedia:bureaucrats. --Ed : It would be nice to see a more even distribution of banning: when 4% of the sysops account for over 50% of the blocks, I can't help feeling uncomfortable... User:MyRedDice 18:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Well, as one of the 107 who have not blocked anyone this year, let me say that I didn't ask to be an admin on Wikipedia to block anyone. I found I had the time to help with the maintenance, & so with these "kewl powerz" I occasionally delete some vandalism, once in a while protect a page, but basically find in the few hours I devote to Wikipedia that there's nothing worthy happening to justify pulling the admin rights out of their bag & using them. And besides, I'd rather work on the content -- which is probably the attitude of most admins. -- User:Llywrch 01:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: Why the concern over the distribution? Different people are into different things. As long as people are doing ''something'' useful in the maintaintence line, and all bases are covered, is it a problem that A specializes in doing X, and B in Y? Not only that, people develop different knowledge-bases as a result - I spend a lot of time on WP:RfD, and so know all the rules, precedents, techniques, etc well. If I had to start doing bans&blocks I'd have to learn a whole bunch first. User:Jnc 18:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Date confusions== #Does "''The following users have sysop rights as of October 4, 2003''" mean to say that the admin list was last updated on that date ? But it is being updated regularly. #Page says "''Sysop activity status was checked on February 17, 2004. ''". But Optim's entry in the Inactive list shows 6 March. :I think the issue is that Optim listed himself; however, February is the last time someone actually checked the contribs of every sysop to find the inactive ones. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 19:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- ==there should be a discussion on 'social organization in cyberspace'== where is the discussion of abuse of authority? the chilling effect on free speech? the discouragement of controversy by 'reversals' and 'deletions' that need not list any reason other than 'this page is garbage'. - - did you folks even take any government classes in school? do you know what 'checks and balances' means? do you even want to talk about it? - - no, of course you dont. admins are just doing their righteous thing and cannot make mistakes of any import. or of course nothing bad is happening. no only bad people are restricted by an unaccountable and unelected admin system. - - nice attitude. thanks for turning wiki into slashdot. nice 'objective' 'wide ranging' page, that. - :Even though I make it a policy not to feed the trolls, in this case, I'll make an exception. You're flatly wrong about admins being unelected - Admins *are* elected on the requets for adminship page. Any person can vote there, although sock puppets votes (accounts with only a handful of edits) tend to be ignored. As far as checks and balances - admins do not think in lockstep. We disagree a fair amount of the time, and we talk it out. If you don't like it, tough. As far as not being accountable - that's what we have the abuse of sysop powers page for. In the future, if you want to troll successfully, you might not want to make your claims so obviously false. User:Raul654 02:09, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) :Well, just to let you know, admins/sysops ''are'' elected - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - and they are constantly held accountable by the community as a whole, with most of their actions being severely limited by convention. Changes made unilaterally by one admin/sysop are quite often questioned, and very few actions can be taken which are not reversible by someone else with the same status - hence the existence of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion as well as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, for instance. That the page didn't express this to you may well be a failure of the page - although in-depth political discussion would probably need a separate page, linked to from here. - User:IMSoP 02:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) ''[comment written simultaneously to Raul654's above, and in a slightly more "chilled" mood, clearly ;)]'' ::Haha! I'm actually quite calm, even if the writing didn't sound that way. It's just that the prepetual accusations of being part of a cabal (Plautus, Bird, et al) have really started to annoy me. One and for all, TINC. User:Raul654 02:24, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC) OH gee, 'convention'. we all know how reliable that is. nobody would ever abuse their power because they should be afraid of 'convention'!!! yes, that is a brilliant check and balance. im sure lots of governments use the terrible terrifying power of 'convention' to keep leaders in line. I think thats what kept nixon from assassinating john dean. 'convention'. yeah. good idea guys. also i am very heartened to learn that administrators can crticizie each other. because we all know that as a group, only admins should be able to criticize each other, after all, they have been the most hard working and care more about wiki than the lowly slimeball users. furthermore, there will obviously be no danger of 'groupthink', because admins are geniuses in the first place, because look how hard they work and how much they care. third off, admins will never ever have their own interests, as a group. nope. there will never be a decision where admins have to decide on something that is between their own interests and the interests of the users. in fact, the interests of the admins are the same as the interests of the users, sort of like Maos argument against democracy in china: the people's interests are represented by the party, therefore the people dont need to have any say over the party. "If you don't like it, tough. . . . . troll" -- Yes this demonstrates the true democratic spirit of the admins. Obviously someone who thinks like this is very worried about users' interests, and will be protective against the abuse of power as witnessed on just about every other 'community' website on the entire internet, like slashdot, kuro5hin, freerepublic, etc. You sir are truly 'serving the people' and guaranteeting access for all. Nope, no cabalist tendencies here, not at all no siree bob. Hell, there is nothing to worry about. Why am I even concerned? Yes, the system is perfectly adequate, and nobody will ever be driven off by a bunch of admins deciding their article has no merit or that their opinions are stupid. Or if they did surely they would be able to find the 'admin discussion' where there is guaranteed to be another admin who will take their side against the deleting admin. I dont see why these whiny users want a say in anything, the admins can take care of it all, and if the user cant be bothered to observe this process, too bad for them! In fact, the discussion pages for administrative decisions are so easy to find, so well thought out, and work so well, that you should be commended for improving on meatspace democracy. Nobody ever goes to the 'deletion list' page and says 'what is this mess'. There are also never any edit conflicts on that page, because it is so short, and there are so few people trying to access it simultaneously. Obviously this whole process of oversight of administrators has been so well thought out and all the issues about overreach of power have been resolved, and nothing really important is going on here. Nope. System is fine. Full steam ahead. Silence the trolls, for they know nothing of the burden of responsibility! --------- how come when someone edits a page an admin doesnt like, its called 'vandalism'. but when an admin deletes or edits a page, and writes 'this is nonsense', its called 'administration'? :OK, the first time, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after that little diatribe, I'm tempted to move a little further towards Raul654's attitude. However, just to put some more basic facts at your disposal in the hope that you will actually find out something about the system you are criticising: :The concept of a wiki is largely based around the idea of what I referred to above as "convention", also known as MeatBall:SoftSecurity and MeatBall:CommunitySolution. The idea is that everyone is accountable to everyone else, and in an ideal world every user would have equal access to the project. Hoever, in a project the size of this one, it could potentially cause a major nuisance if a random user (who need supply no personal details to have the same access rights as a normal logged in user like me) could do things like page deletion at will - let alone the ability to block other users, which is nonetheless sadly necessary on occasion. So a ''very limited'' set of abilities is only granted to a subset of the users. But the ''decisions'' are not made by these users, only the ''actions''. :In fact, this whole conversation rather makes me favour the suggestion that we change the terminology to something more akin to "housekeeper". There is no such thing as "the group of administrators", nor are there pages where things are discussed specifically between administrators; and any user is quite free to call any other user's edits "vandalism" or "nonsense", with the knowledge that any other user can come along and disagree with them. In fact, ways of working out such disagreements fairly are always being suggested and tried, as a more thorough look into onsite politics would reveal. :In short, your comments are interesting, but mostly fail to take into account the basic workings of this community. - User:IMSoP 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) --- look, man, i dont care about how it works, i care about how its going to work. every single last web board on the internet has had instances where the people in power abused it to delete things simply because they didnt like it. power corrupts. :OK, I can do the condescending thing too: "look, matey boy, if you don't care how it works, shut up and leave us alone" if there are administrators, and there are more than one, there damn well is a group of administrators. they discuss things on the 'deletion' page, by posting their comments under the suggestions for deletion, suggestions made only by other administrators. if you cant figure out how admins might have a group interest that is different from the users, i feel sorry for you. :the above is factually incorrect. both suggestions and responses on WP:VFD can be made by any user - yes, that includes you. The only thing the admins/sysops do is implement the final decision. And as for admins/sysops having some kind of "group interest" or "shared opinion", would that arguments were as simple as that around here! At least that way we'd reach some kind of decision sometimes. the most obvious example would be pages like this. since wiki is itself made by discussions and articles on wiki, and administrators position, abilities, and so forth are come about to by discussions within the wiki system, it kind of stands to reason that eventually some day there will be some fight, wherein the administrators will use their power to further their interests at the expense of the users, on one of these such discussions. any page with discussions about the place of administrators, about admins overstepping, about the way adminning works, etc etc etc, could be a starting point for the armageddon of wikipedia. :so, what are you trying to say exactly? admins will use their power of being able to edit a page, just like we're both doing now (just to stress this, I'm not a sysop/admin any more than you are) to... um... discuss things? if you dont guard against the corruption of power, it will take over. 'new things' will quit being tried out, because those in power will not want to lose their power. why? because its been institutionalized. the rules are in place. the code is like concrete, it is slowly setting in, without any safeguards in place. By the time you need them, it will be too late. :thanks for the warning. we have plenty of safeguards, and are always open to suggestions for new ones. and it's worth mentioning that users become (and, indeed, cease to be) sysops/admins by the agreement of ''users'', not that of existing sysops/admins, so there is no obvious way of anyone "taking over" really i dont care though. someone will just fork wiki, since it is all copyleft someone will just take all the content over along with them. sometimes we have to learn things the hard way. :please, feel free to do so; then we won't have to put up with your uninformed rantings any more. Internet troll User:IMSoP 00:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Administrators should not do anything that's not supported by policy. Everyone can participate in creating policy and reprimanding or de-admining. There is a way to undo every admin action, so everything is reversable. Additionally, normal users far outnumber admins, so they could elect better admins and remove bad ones. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 00:11, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC) ''[drafted simultaneously]'' ::Well, Dori, maybe this should be explained somewhere. Like in a wikipedia constitution or something. I have read the admin page and other 'meta' pages and none of it mentions 'voting' for administrators. There is no mention of checks and balances. Pretend if you will that an article was written about the US president that somehow failed to mention voting, congress, and the supreme court. That is the situation we have on wikipedia. Furthermore, if the policy is hidden/hard to find/not written, then it is not much different than if users had no voice at all. In fact my problem is not so much the process, it is the geek 'benevolent dictatorship' attitude that goes unchecked in all of cyberspace. This fellow says there are plenty of safeguards but does not mention a single one. You say 'admins shouldnt disregard policy' but how exactly is this enforced? ::As for genius saying admins have no group interest, i would simply ask him to study basic political science or history. That is like congress or the politburo saying they never agree on anything. To them, they never do. But they sure agree on their pay raises, on pork barrel projects, on stopping campaign finance reform, rejecting anti-lobbying laws, discouraging third parties through ballot access laws and debates, and on a lot of other things that they, as a class, have a common interest in. The very idea that someone could say that people with power have no 'common interest' is like someone decrying evolution as a crackpot theory. Actually it is a basic scientific fact of human organizational behavior. As for 'condescension', i am just so sorry that I fight fire with fire and am not a submissive little coward like the rest of the users who either give up and leave or dont say anything. :::All the information I talked about is in the page, please read it, review it, improve it. We can't force anyone to do anything here. If you think there needs to be a Wikipedia Constitution, then read all the policy pages and write that constition. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 16:28, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) :::I guess the key point about admins/sysops having "no group interest" is that you seem to be over-estimating the amount of power they have, and the extent to which they form a coherent group. The famous assertion that "power tends to corrupt; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" immediately suggests (to me, anyway) that a small amount of power will only create a small amount of corruption, and if you look at the actual powers granted, they are about as far from absolute as you can get. And since there is (to my knowledge) no part of the site, and no decision-making process, that involves sysops/admins exclusively (unlike, say, the US Congress), they rarely exhibit ''any'' characteristics of a "class" - although there may arguably be psychological effects. Essentially, though, I personally think we are a long way from having anything resembling a "sysop/admin agenda", or the ability to realise such an agenda. - User:IMSoP 17:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Admin powers abuse by Adam Bishop == I am afraid I have to complain about Adam Bishop's unfair behaviour and, what I feel, an extreme abuse of his administrator powers. On 20 Mar 2004, 22:34 he has blocked my account and unfairly reverted my edits in Cottbus, Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Free City of Gdansk regarding the usage of alternative language names of various cities. Despite the Wikipedia rule diplayed on this page ''Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is meant to be used solely to deal with persistent vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions, non-persistent vandalism, etc. '' Adam Bishop used this ban againts me to push his presonal POV, and to block me from editing and discussing the issue. His action was done without any discussion or warning. My opinion is that the alternative language placenames should be allowed on condition that this is aplied equally to all languages. For example if we allow German names for Polish cities, we should also allow Polish names for the German cities. Adam's opinion seems to be that German names for Polish cities should be allowed and maybe enforces, and at the same time Polish names for German cities should be forbidden. This subject is already discusssed (and was discussed in time of Adams' actions) in the Wikipedia mediation started at my request: * Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation * Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names) Adam's action blocked me from participating in these discussions and in the mediation process. Adam should have consulted these pages before makin his action. In these circumstances I demmand: * a formal apologies from Adam Bishop * some sort of penalty for his unfair and biased behavour * revoking of his administrator rights, as he clearly has broked the basic rules User:Gdansk 00:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) === Just received apologies === Hey Gdansk, I shouldn't have blocked you, so I apologize, but you were trolling and vandalizing and it was very frustrating. Polish cities should have Polish names, but Kiel, Munich, and others aren't Polish. You even said to me that you were changing those articles out of some kind of revenge. User:Adam Bishop 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Apologies half accepted, as I do not feel guilty, and you continue to claim that I was. That fulfills 0.5 out of my 3 demands above. -- User:Gdansk 00:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Who are you to demand anything? You are not blocked now and Adam apologized. --User:Maveric149 10:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Is there a way to see the IP addresses used by registered users (in order to confirm sockpuppet suspicions)? == Is there a way to see the IP addresses used by registered users (in order to confirm sockpuppet suspicions)? Better yet, is there a way to get a list of users that have connected from the same IP as a particular user? User:Mkweise 22:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) :No (if you are able to then it's a bug and security issue), but developers have access to the logs and can check if an account is a sock puppet (if it's being used for making trouble). User:Dori | User talk:Dori 22:54, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) See wikipedia:feature requests. It's a common request, but there's no ability at the moment. There probably should be. User:MyRedDice 01:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Kinds of users == Wikipedia has different kinds of users, with different kinds of powers. * anonymous users * registered users, also called volunteers. Can upload images and rename pages. * sysops/admins, can revert changes, deleted pages & images, and block users. * bureaucrats, stewards : can appoint admins on one or all wikis * developers: have sql access to all dbs, can change sources. Admins have extra powers, and thus extra responsibility, but no extra authority. Admins have an 'example function' towards other volunteers. That is: if you are an admin, try to be always polite, friendly, kind, stay out of quarrels, etc. A admin is not 'more' than other volunteers, but he can do more. All authority rests with the wikipedia community. You can not set the direction of a wiki, act on your own authority, or whatever. This applies even if a community is very small, even new volunteers should have a chance to have their say. Try to follow procedures strictly - if you as a admin dont do it, dont expect that others will do it. Dont quarrel, and certainly not publicly with other admins. Of course you can have differences of opinion, but keep things civilised. Dont advertise your being admin. Authority does not derive from this, but is carried by your arguments and deeds. Listing your real name and email address is not obligatory, but it works easier if other admins know these. == Confidential == If confidential information comes your way, handle it with care. Protect wikipedia by being carefull with your password. Dont choose an easy-to-guess password such as your name, yopur userid, or words like 'secret'. Dont forget to logout when using wiki from a public compueter susch as a university == Using your power == You ''can'' *block an IP-address: do this only if the user keeps vandalizing pages after having been warned, and for a limited time. *block a user: do this only after conscent from other users. *protect a page: this is antii-wiki. Avoid it when possible. If you do it, state why. *remove a page or image: do this only after having listed the page for two weeks. If the page contains just obscenities, you can delete it immediatly. Always use you common sense, and act in the interest of wikipedia. == Request to ban John Kenney === User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney has just vandalised 3 pages Gdynia, Gdansk and Szczecin by removing the list of sports teams, list of local politicians and the title line. One of his comments was ''so sick of this shit''. I am not sure if the ''shit'' remark was to the Polish sporting teams of the Polish politicians, or something else, but this behaviour requiers sokme action. I FEEL INSULTED. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Szczecin&diff=3974791&oldid=3973450 Szczecin banditism]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdynia&diff=3974746&oldid=3973503 Gdynia banditism] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3973921&oldid=3973461 Gdansk banditism]. May I suggest a 24h ban, and if this will not help to ban this bandit permanetly. Please HELP!!!!! Go away - you are annoying. User:Manning Bartlett 21:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Need help to move a page history== There has been confusion over Macrocosm and Microcosm. It was originally Macrocosm. I changed it to Macrocosm/Microcosm. And somebody changed it to Macrocosm and Microcosm. Now the original history is lost and I would like for it to meet up. Is that possible?User:WHEELER 14:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) :I've done the history merge. Please check if I missed something. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 15:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) ==Fatal error in Russian wikipedia== In http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage was added   between words "��" and "��". Now all pages of ru.wikipedia.org not opening: :Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-new/includes/Skin.php on line 872 How fix it? --Ctac :The sign ";" caused this problem. Who can fix it? On-line access to [http://ru.wikipedia.org ru.wikipedia.org] doesn't work now!!! It is necessary fix string 872 in skin.php. Please, help! --User:Ctac 10:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::This is now fixed, but you still need to remove the . This talk page is not the best place to announce such errors since it's not something that Wikipedia:administrators can do anything about. Wikipedia:IRC channels is the fastest place to get a response. If you can't get on IRC, ask on the village pump for someone else to report it there. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 11:29, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) :::Thanks! --User:Ctac 11:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Page move problems == If I try to move a page over to one of its Redirects (which has a history), the move fails with the message The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or contact an Wikipedia:Administrators to help you with the move. With a link to this page to request assistance. However, when you get here, there doesn't appear to be a suitable category to handle page move problems. (I was trying to move Les Fauves to Fauvism) -- User:Solipsist 09:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Done. I guess the village pump might have been a quicker place to ask. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 23:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) ::Many thanks - I wasn't in rush. I should think the Fauvists are pretty laid back. However, I was more worried about updating the instructions on this page to handle this sort of case, since this is where the error message sends you. -- User:Solipsist 12:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::MediaWiki:Articleexists now mentions the village pump. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 22:32, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) ::::He-hee - that's one solution. -- User:Solipsist 05:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Reverting== :*Wikipedia:Revert pages quickly. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with edit summary ''(Reverted edits by X to last version by Y)'' and marks it as a minor change. This expedites the reversion of edits by anonymous vandals. Note that admin rollback is only to be used against vandalism or abuse, not in edit conflicts. Although all users, including those who are not logged in, can revert pages, it only takes 1 click to rollback an edit as opposed to 4 page loads to revert normally, providing an unwarranted advantage. This is my proposed clarification of that paragraph. Any thoughts, ideas, criticisms? I'm not an admin, so I'm going on what I read about the rollback feature here. If it's wrong, please correct me. User:Style 05:36, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC) :I came to this page trying to figure out how to revert some edits. This description doesn't match what I see when I look at user contributions. I see lines like this: "14:20, 7 Mar 2005 (hist) Subject (top)". There is no link that looks like: [rollback]. I still don't know how to revert pages. --- ::This page is discussing what administrators can do. For a non-administrator such as yourself, see Wikipedia:How to revert a page.-User:Gadfium 02:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :What difference does it make? A revert is a revert. If you're nice for a few months and make a bunch of non-controversial edits, you can get this turbocharged reversion tool as well :-) User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 17:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I don't see any problem with a sysop using autoreverts in an editing dispute ''iff'' that sysop Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Explain reverts on the talk page. User:MirvUser talk:Mirv Special:Emailuser/Mirv 19:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) : The difference is that some admins use it in revert wars over matters of opinion. Sad, but true. The problem is that the autorevert summaries are completely uninformative and that admins aren't supposed to have greater editorial powers than non-admins, just greater administrative powers; as this article clearly states. User:Style 09:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC) ::The differences are minimal, admins do not have greater editorial powers with the revert button, and admins are typically experienced enough to be able to tell when users are not making edits of substance but are merely trolling or editing/reverting for personal reasons or POV reasons. User:Jayjg 19:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::: No, the difference is clear and it is stated in this article if you would care to read it: ''Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.'' How much clearer can you get? And as long as POV/personal disputes are not vandalism, Jayjg, they should not be rolled back. You don't seem to know what vandalism is, so please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. User:Style 16:39, 23 Oct 2004 ::: I don't have any problem with the proposed revision, and would cheerfully follow it if it were adopted by rough consensus. However, I personally would rather not do it, and here's why. Many (most?) admins are also ''principally'' article editors, and frankly, the article editing is a lot more interesting. I do a certain amount of janitor work, as my contribution to keeping the hallways clean (I try and take care of WP:RfD), but really I'd rather spend my time editing. Time spent doing maintainence is time not spent editing, so I try and save time where I can, and using the revert button in an edit war with a problematic user (i.e. the ones who say "my way, or no way"), as others have pointed out, is to produce a ''result'' which is nothing we couldn't do as ordinary users, just done a little more expeditiously. Yes, the message is uninformative (alas), and that is a problem, but judgement can come into play - if it's not obvious what the issue is, a message should be left on the talk page. After all, a normal user is under no obligation to do a good job filling in the edit summary - and as we all know, there are plenty who ''don't''. So again, the info-less revert message is nothing that an ordinary user can't ''also'' do. The ''only'' difference is time, and frankly I think that's a fair trade for the janitor work that many admins spend a lot of their time on. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 13:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::: Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm going to reverse course, and agree we should formally make it only for vandalism. My reasoning is that I think it's worth the minor extra work (click on History, click on the rev you want, click Edit, click Save - 4 clicks instead of 1) to prevent any appearance that admins are using their power to 'win' disputes. If we aren't doing anything a normal user can't do, there can be no possible substance to such a charge. I don't mind a couple of extra key-clicks to make it completely obvious that admins are normal users when it comes to disputes over content. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 01:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::As stated, the revert button does not give admins greater editorial powers, and even though they don't have a revert button, anyone can (and many often do) revert without much difficulty at all; non-admin trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers do this all the time. And admins are typically experienced enough to be able to tell when users are not making edits of substance but are merely trolling or editing/reverting for personal reasons or POV reasons. Of course, the trolls/POV pushers/vandals in question often (and quite unsurprisingly) vehemently deny this. User:Jayjg 22:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::Yes it does give admins greater powers, because they can revert much more quickly. And as I said before, POV disputes are not vandalism and should not be a valid target for admin rollback. User:Style 09:44, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC) ::::::A difference of a few seconds is hardly an amazing power. And vandalism/trolling pretending to be a POV dispute is indeed a valid target for admin rollback. By the way, Talk: pages are there for a reason. User:Jayjg 21:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::::Has anyone noticed that some users are "technically minded" and kind write their own tools to do reverts? Everyone should have access to this feature because it doesn't give them any extra power; it just makes things easier. User:BrianjdUser talk:BrianjdSpecial:Contributions/Brianjd | Talk:HTML#Restricted HTML? | 07:23, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) :::::::: I would not agree with User:Brianjd. It is not easy at all to write your own tools to do reverts. I don't think more than 1% of users have this ability (I would say even less than 1 in 1000 can write such a code). And making things easier ''is'' extra power. You are much more likely to revert things if it is easier to do. No, this feature should stay with the administrators. (OK, now the real reason for my opinion, I would like to become an administrator one day for, among other reasons, having the "one click" revert feature :). User:Oleg Alexandrov 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Maybe it's not easy to write such tools, but it's certainly easy to download such tools. I thought "Power#Social" (in this context) refers to your ability to do things, not the likelihood of you actually doing them. User:BrianjdUser talk:BrianjdSpecial:Contributions/Brianjd | Talk:HTML#Restricted HTML? | 04:34, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) == Copyright question? == I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction. From [http://www.marutiudyog.com/ Maruti Udyog website], in [http://www.marutiudyog.com/termsofuse.htm Terms of Use]. ''RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing. '' Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia? Thanks, User:Alren 17:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Not unless we get explicit permission. --User:Hemanshu 10:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==New user levels in MediaWiki 1.4== Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 23:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) == Admin noticeboard == I've created one because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages (I've already been blocked for doing this!) So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All admins please feel free to use this! - User:Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Act like an admin?== User:Andrevan added this to the article:

In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can act as if he/she is an administrator even if he/she has not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be chosen as full administrators by the community when they are finally nominated.

Could you explain this a bit more? From what I've seen on WP:RfA, impersonating an admin has generally been very bad for a potential. What does "act as if they are an administrator" even mean, anyway? The only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs. 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) :I didn't add that, so I have no idea. Andre">User:Andrevan (User_talk:Andrevan) 10:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) :I added it, not Andrevan. I have been editing since before there were admins on Wikipedia. At that time all users were expected to act as if they were admins. Those who "act as if they are an administrator" can be recognised by their willingness to revert vandalism, to uphold the NPOV, to tidy up articles, to work with other editors and otherwise to behave responsibly whether or not they have the admin-privs. This is rather different from "impersonating an administrator" which implies that you are lying to other editors. If "the only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs" then you have been acting as if you were an administrator all along. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have been made an administrator. The point that I was trying to make is that there is no difference between the behaviour of a good editor and that of an admin -- a point which you evidently agree with. The mark of a good admin candidate is a support vote which says "I thought that he already was one". -- User:Derek Ross | User talk:Derek Ross 05:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) I intend to replace the text with a little clarification added to make it clear that "pretending to be an admin" is a bad idea whereas "behaving like an admin" is a good one since people seem to have misunderstood my original text. -- User:Derek Ross | User talk:Derek Ross 05:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) And I have now done so -- User:Derek Ross | User talk:Derek Ross 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) == Super-user? == Has anyone been considering an intermediate level for "super-users"—people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but don't get bogged down in VfD debates, etc.? In particular, I would like the ability to revert vandalism, and perhaps some marginally greater ability to move pages would be nice, though I'd probably just end up causing trouble ;-) User:Mulad —User:Mulad User talk:Mulad 05:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) :There's an advanced meta:Help:User levels coming in a future version of MediaWiki that will make such ideas possible. For now, though, you're either a sysop/admin or you're not. (Note that "super-user" wouldn't be such a good name, because it sounds like superuser...) - User:IMSoP 18:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I posted a similar idea at Wikipedia:Maintenance adminship. I agree that "super-user" sounds better. User:Rad Racer 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Reverts don't work?== Current text on this page says: :Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] � appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with edit summary (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. In a fairly recent change, admins can also rapidly revert changes when viewing a diff. Every once in a while, I could swear that it works as described. However, more often than not, clicking Rollback simply reverts to the previous version, NO MATTER whether it was the same user and NO MATTER whether I was viewing a diff to an earlier, correct version (e.g., see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_English_Sheepdog&action=history], where I was viewing a 2-back revision by Grutness and the latest version by an anon, and it simply rolled back to the previous edit by same anon--oops, I lied, I see that the IP is off by 1. But it did NOT roll back to grutness). What does rollback *really* do? What is it really *supposed* to do? I'd really like it to rollback to the previous version that I'm viewing on the comparison page. I don't think that even half of the rollbacks that I need to do go back only one revision. User:Elf | User talk:Elf 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It rolls back ''all contiguous edits'' by the ''most recent'' editor. If the most recent editor made five edits in a row, and you only want to roll back the last one, you're out of luck, it rolls them all back. Moreover, if you want to roll back the last three editors, you're also out of luck; it only rolls back the most recent editor. It doesn't matter which version you are comparing. Does that explain it? User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks; I removed the incorrect statement about the diff. User:Elf | User talk:Elf 23:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) You ''can'' rollback while looking at a diff. It just doesn't roll back to what you were looking at, necessarily. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship == Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is a proposal to allow Wikipedians to vote on the demotion of administrators, just as they vote to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship them. A Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship#Straw poll to gather consensus as to whether such a process should be available. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 18:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC) ==Blockable== Is it okay for me to put stuff in my sandbox or will I be blocked just like I would if I put something in the Wikipedia: Sandbox? Also what is a block? --User:Trueblue9999 17:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Test edits aren't blockable, particularly in Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can make your own sandbox and use it for the same purposes. A Wikipedia block is a way of stopping you logging in and editing. We use them to stop people who seem to be doing things that, if left to go on, could damage Wikipedia. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) But I got a message saying I will be blocked if I make another edit in Wikipedia:Sandbox on my talk page. --User:Trueblue9999 18:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Administrators

:Administrators

Administrators

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Administrators

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

A